If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

Revised bill highlights

Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

This is where I honestly have to say...I dont really care.
people with nothing to hide dont require privacy.

They can entertain themselves with my sexting behaviours, or my obscene jokes, or my internet porn activities all they want really, if you want to look in my window be my guest but dont complain about what you see.

I realize others are not so shameless in their own personal behaviours, but the truley worst of us ,hide behind some of our privacy laws to get away with the worst things imaginable.
surprised its a Dem though.This is straight patriot act stuff.

If you have nothing to hide, then you don't require privacy is a terrible concept. I have nothing to hide but I'll be damned if you are going to read my emails without my permission or a warrant granting access with very specific reasons for that access. The Constitution coudn't be clearer on this subject. Fortunately, this will be shut down very soon after they try to do this.

This is where I honestly have to say...I dont really care.
people with nothing to hide dont require privacy.

They can entertain themselves with my sexting behaviours, or my obscene jokes, or my internet porn activities all they want really, if you want to look in my window be my guest but dont complain about what you see.

I realize others are not so shameless in their own personal behaviours, but the truley worst of us ,hide behind some of our privacy laws to get away with the worst things imaginable.
surprised its a Dem though.This is straight patriot act stuff.

I agree

Can I have your email address and password? I'm creepy like that

**on a more serious note, what a great way to help control public figures. Media gonna have a field day with whoever the ef ain't on board with what certain people wan them to get on board with. Get it?

If you have nothing to hide, then you don't require privacy is a terrible concept. I have nothing to hide but I'll be damned if you are going to read my emails without my permission or a warrant granting access with very specific reasons for that access. The Constitution coudn't be clearer on this subject. Fortunately, this will be shut down very soon after they try to do this.

I totally get where your coming from...people are very protective of their thoughts and feelings...many times people use these things to get leverage on, or hurt you.
If I had the need for some trade secrets in my buisness,or i was involved in matters involving OTHER peoples privacy then I would probably feel differently, but I actually do feel some concern when people are so vehement in thier privacy.i understand the constitutionality of Privacy, but it is also the right which allows people to chain children in closets for 12 years.....

I totally get where your coming from...people are very protective of their thoughts and feelings...many times people use these things to get leverage on, or hurt you.
If I had the need for some trade secrets in my buisness,or i was involved in matters involving OTHER peoples privacy then I would probably feel differently, but I actually do feel some concern when people are so vehement in thier privacy.i understand the constitutionality of Privacy, but it is also the right which allows people to chain children in closets for 12 years.....

Why is other people's privacy more important than my own?

But if you are making the case that "if you have nothing to hide...", then I have to say you don't understand the constitutionality at all.

Even beyond the Constitution, there is a reason that we have the warrant or oversight process beyond the idea of freedom. If you require a warrant to search my home, then it continues and extends the assumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If you require a warrant and a certain amount of specificity with regards to what you want to search, then it continues and extends the burden of evidence onto the prosecution and not on the defendant.

No one here will argue (at least to my knowledge) that there is not a time and a place when the police must be able to search documents or files in order to prosecute a crime. But they can't just do it because they want to, they must first prove that there is a reason that those files need searching and draw a direct connection between those files and a crime that has been committed.

I completely understand the constitutionality of privacy, especially how it applies to the overreach of the crown in the 18th century.
Im just saying that some of the freedoms we enjoy have consequencs.

WQe dont seem to mind to much when we trample the rights of Gang members when they do sweeps and association penalties right?
I mean on a philosophical level, we say...oh, that is wrong, but on a practical level we are happy to see a bunch of jerks get what they have coming.

If a Police officer ignores right to search laws and enters a home and finds a child victim being molested, should he excuse himself and ignore what he saw?

Its a slippery slope,I understand that holding the line is the only way to keep from an avalanche,Im just speaking from personal experiences and the people Ive known that have been the most secretive,wind up being the ones up to no good.